It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nullify Now! US tyranny defense.

page: 5
70
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lightrule

This is you just making it up as you go along, that's not exactly right is it? Medicine is 10x more expensive in the united states because you have pharmaceutical lobbyists in Washington steering ALL the legislation in whatever direction they want. No one likes to admit it in the good old US of A but your federal government has been hijacked. While R&D does obviously cost money it is not the reason medicines and health care are 10x higher in the US than else where in the world. One other thing you seemed to have paid no mind to at all is the fact that the US is no where near the top of any lists rating medical advances and drug research in the last decade.


Wiki - Pharmaceutical R and D
PHRMA
What goes into the cost of Prescription Drugs
US Bureau of the Census, Center for Economic Studies, Chicago Census Research Data Center

Medical / Drug Advances in the past decade
ABC - Top medical advances in past decade

Drug Company Listings and info for - 2006
List of Pharmaceutical Companies
Over view of Pharmaceutical Industry
List of best selling drugs

Drug Company by Nation
Pfizer - USA
Johnson & Johnson - USA
Abbott Laboratories - USA
Merck & Co - USA
Eli Lilly - USA
Bristol-Myers Squibb - USA
Amgen - USA
Wyeth - USA (now part of Pfizer)
Forest Laboratories - USA
Abbott Laboratories - USA
Schering-Plough Corporation - USA
Biogen Idec - USA
Procter & Gamble - USA
Gilead Sciences - USA
MedImmune, LLC - USA
Genzyme - USA
Allergan - USA
Cephalon, Inc - USA

I can keep going but you get the idea. The companies above are in the top 150. If you drop it down to the top 50 or 100, you will still see American Drug Companies will have the lions share of the R and D.

Listings for 2009
Top Drug Sales - 2009
Top Drug Sales - 2008

2010 Global R&D Funding Forecast: An Overview


Energy, climate change, and healthcare are expected to be the top technology drivers in the future. While energy and climate change technologies are expected to be developed on an equally strong global basis, with no particular country dominating, the U.S. should be able to maintain a strong lead in the development of new technologies due to its existing strong infrastructure, massive R&D spending, and strong intellectual property base.



The U.S. is expected to maintain technology leadership in specific areas over the next ten years, including healthcare and medicine, basic energy research, carbon dioxide sequestration, and security and defense. Massive annual investments, strong infrastructure, dedicated strategic policies, and strong personnel and technology resources will help to maintain and ensure that leadership.


So to answer your accusation, no, I was not just making things up.


Originally posted by LightruleThey are getting pissed because instead of Joe American paying 1000 dollars for his script, he can cross the border and pay 100 dollars and they lost 900 dollars profit, end of story. If Company X sells something for $1000 on one side of the street and $100 on the other side of the street Company X can get bent if they expect me to pay $1000 for something they are profiting off at $100. Give your head a shake, these companies operate for one reason only, PROFIT, they are still making profits worldwide at 10% of the cost, if they weren't they wouldn't be selling to that market.


Why drugs cost less in Canada
Price Discrimination

The simple answer is price controls. A Canadian law authorizes a review board to order a price reduction whenever the price of a drug exceeds the median of the prices in six European countries plus the United States. Since all the European countries intervene in various ways to hold down drug costs, Canada in effect piggy-backs on other countries' price controls.

Price discrimination works in the drug industry because drugs are very expensive to develop, but fairly cheap to manufacture. As long as companies can recoup their research and development costs by charging high prices in the United States, they can make a profit in Canada and elsewhere by merely covering the cost of making the pill (or tube of ointment or whatever).


High cost of drugs
Why drugs cost more in America - NYT

Again I can go on, but the conclusion is Americans are charged more for the drugs to offset the Research and Development cost. The FDA refuses to allow Americans to buy drugs from other countries (except for a 90 day supply from Canada) because they cannot gaurantee safety of the product.


Originally posted by LightruleAre you actually saying your Not For Profit hospital charges you more than a for profit hospital and you do this because it helps the people that can't afford health care? I have a question for you...

In 2014 when Obama's health care bill rolls into full effect what do you think is going to happen to the 20+ million people that can't afford to purchase health care? The government isn't going to give it to them for free, that's not part of the deal, but it will be against the law not to have health care. What then?

-Lightrule


Yes I am saying that. They have to cover the cost of people who are not insured, and the only way to do this right now is by charging more to people who have insurance. There is something called Pressganey scores most Hospitals use. These scores are essentially customer satisfaction scores. The higher the score by the patient, the more money the Hospital gets back from the State and Federal Government to help offset the costs.

Everyday occurence / example - You have a homless person / drug seaker / etc come into the ER. They say they are suffering from back pain. When they get to the Doctor, they go through the tests and what not. The Doctor explains that ibu[rofen will help with the pain managment (lower back pain is very hard to diagnose through actual testing). The person then says they are allergic to ibuprofen, and request a narcotic. The Doctor refuses, the person gets pissed and leaves. If they get surveyed they can trash the Hospital / Staff, while never having to explain why they left or what they were there for. Money lost to the Hospital because someone didnt get their way.

This is just one example of how the system can be abused. Hospitals making fradulent claims towards medicare/medicade (state and Federal) is also another way the system is abused. Insurance companies not being allowed to operate across state lines and one cohesive unit is yet another.

They Hospitals do what they can to bring cash in to keep up with costs. The "profit" the non profits make are reinvested into smaller / rural hopsitals / clinis. They go so far as to purchase high end items (Xray / MRI ) to send to these places so they dont fall off the non profit status.

The healthcare industry is already started to put things in place for the Obama medical plan. One of the top 9 nationwie Hospitals actually just sold off its insurance arm due to uncertainty of insurance under that plan. As far as it being illegal, they can say that all they want, but good luck enforcing it.
As a member of Law Enforcement I would not carry out that order, even if it means I go to jail for refusing to enforce an arrest warrant. The day we begin locking people up for being poor is the day we need to think long and hard about the Government we have now, vs. the one we should put in place. I would prefer we make changes sooner, rather than waiting for us to fall off the slippery slope.

To bring this back on track, Obamacare will be a test for the courts, top to bottom. Even if it passes constitutional muster, the implamentation alone is going to take time. I am waging that before then, there will be a shift in the Congress / White House, where things in the bill will get repealed. In adition to that I can see States refusing to comply with it even if the courts support it.

I always figured we would eventually get to this point in our country, where the people are starting to face off against the British..errr President / Political parties again. I just never thought it would be over HealthCare.

Sorry for the long post.




posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   
How over does it have to get for all these brick head idiots (fat f**king americans) to see whats happening. Ill be so glad whem they (these pathetic morons...you know like that crap in the "black (white) house". All those fools that voted for this "whatever IT is" a "liar in chief". Look at his record, Look at bush (very little b), look at the 911 fe(ass)co. Now anyone that can't see is blind and if YOU can't see this crap you are more than blind. States (mostly full of idiots themselves) with a few exceptions better wake up. Its here (NOW) and it is not going away until these liars and evil basters have complete contol. God I just can't believe it. You dam fools that thank some of us would ever fall for you blantant crap. You blind americans (whatever you are) will find out soon enough and YOU will get (from them) your reward. Have you ever considered you might like it? "GOD BLESS AMERICA" ? You have to be joking.....right?



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by GhostLancer
To me, people upset about the new healthcare are probably already amongst the ranks of the "haves." Because, healthcare benefits the have-nots. And this whole thing about states rights is just a necessary step to take for people influenced by lies (Palin's death squads, et al), big corporations (campaign contributions) and special interest lobbies (wealthy corps and individuals) to set forth an opposition to a law that tries to level the healthcare playing field, among other issues.


OK, here’s where I have to chime in.

First off, I’m not exactly a “have”. I had health care insurance a few years back. I dropped it because it seemed that my health insurance jumped about $40 every 6 months. Why? I wasn’t costing them any more money than before. So I just figured it would be cheaper for me to cover my own health care costs out of my own pocket. My choice.

This “health care” law doesn’t level the playing field. If you read the legislation, which I’m sure you have, you will realize that contrary to what we are told, this law DOES NOT provide HEALTH CARE to anyone. What it DOES is force people to BUY HEALTH INSURANCE. Having health insurance does not mean you will get health care. Sitting around an emergency room for a few hours will show you that.

Further reading of the legislation should prove even more enlightening. For instance, do you think this will make health insurance more affordable? Why would you think that? I have not read any dollar limit on what an insurance company can charge anyone. If anyone knows different, please share. A couple of facts may help shine some light on this. (1) This legislation was written by insurance lobbyist. (2) Heath insurance is a multi-billion dollar a year industry. That is, insurance companies take in billions more in premiums than they pay in claims. That’s money that patients could be paying to health care providers, but insurance companies siphon it off. And yet, we’re supposed to believe that now that they get more money, out of the goodness of their hearts, they are going to cut into their profits to make health insurance more affordable for people.
Riiiiight.

But they have to insure you now, right? Not exactly. If you refuse to buy health insurance, you get “fined” by the IRS. You don’t pay the fine you go to jail. Similarly, if they refuse to insure you, they have to pay a fine as well. Their fine? $100 per person per day. So, theoretically, an insurance company could be faced with this situation: you need a $50,000 operation to save your life. Even after the surgery, you’re looking a years of rehab. The insurance company can decide it’s cheaper just to drop your coverage and pay the fine of $100 per day until you die. Perfectly legal under the health care law. Of course, they wouldn’t do that because insurance companies always put people above profits, right? It’s not like they would have a “panel” of number crunchers deciding dollars versus “death”.
Riiiiight.

As for the constitutionality of the law, I just don’t see it. I am not aware of any provision that allows the federal government for force anyone to buy anything. Some have said that the Commerce Clause would apply, but that logic has a huge gaping hole. If I don’t buy insurance, then no commerce has taken place, hence nothing to regulate.

I would hope that people would see this law for what it is. The President and Congress have been bribed by the insurance companies to sell a portion of America’s future to the insurance companies, just as they sold us to the banks and the IMF in 1913. If this law is allowed to stand, then 100 years from now Americans will bemoan how they were sold out in 2010, and calling for an audit of the Federal Insurance Agency, which they’ll never get.

Another thing that really bugs me about this, for those kind enough to still be reading this rant, is: “Where are all the promised lawsuits?” When Arizona passed it’s illegal immigration law, it was in court before the ink was dry. Here it is months later and still nothing on this insurance company bailout law. I’m starting to suspect that there will be no legal fight. I think they are just waiting for a cooling off period before some judge gets bribed by the insurance companies to dismiss the whole thing without a trial. Unless we have a million gun march on Washington, DC, insurance companies will be getting money for every man, woman and child in America from 6 months after they’re born till the day they die.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by VictorVonDoom
 


The Federal Government not being able to force people to buy things is how they are pushing it. It is considered a "tax", which requires people to pay for it. Like I said, I cant see the court upholding this thing, and if it does, I cant see the States complying with it.

As for Arizona, and the other issue, we have to wait for it to be passed and in effect in order to have standing to challenge it.




edit on 13-9-2010 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tribble

If and when they come to round us up- for whatever. IMO nothing will matter. I will have to go along. Overpowered.



What a strange notion!

Overpowered or not, I DON'T have to go along. I can choose instead to go out, and go out spectacularly!



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


That fictional law endisnighe would be unconstitutional it would violate the 14th Amendment


Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


www.archives.gov...


Going by that logic, all federal firearms laws are unconstitutional, since they violate the 2nd Amendment.

Yippee!

Can we disband BATFE now?



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
We do have the consent of the governed in this country, that consent is given when a person is elected into office by the people.


So, if I withhold consent by not voting, am I off the hook, are am I still among the governed, but non consensually?

What do they call non-consensual sex? Oh yeah.... rape...



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 




So, if I withhold consent by not voting, am I off the hook, are am I still among the governed, but non consensually?


If you don't care enough about this country to vote, then what right do you claim to complain about the way it's run?

Make's no sense to me those who abstain from voting having the audacity to complain how the country is run. If you are so apathetic about your right to vote, obviously you are equally apathetic about how this country is governed and in that way you do give your consent to be governed by anyone who comes along.

So instead of your analogy of being a rape victim, it's more like you are the party slut who doesn't care who gives it to her.


edit on 9/13/2010 by whatukno because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Well I'm pretty sure everyone on here has heard my thoughts on revolution in the United States, so I won't bore you again. I will say though that nullification is at least a potentially peaceful way to enact change, so for that OP, you get a star. Thanks for not just being another armchair Rambo, well done.

I will say though that it seems the majority of the people whom want a different system than currently exists in the US want a radically different one. As such, I am wondering, and please all do chime in as I am actually genuinely curious here:

Does anyone who wants a nullification or revolution or secession scenario believe in taxation?

I'm not about to call anyone out here or judge for the responses I get, my view on taxation is pretty well known by my previous posts. It is just a question that I happened upon while reading this thread.

Thanks all!



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by GhostLancer
Besides, the new healthcare LAW is exactly that. A law. So far, I haven't seen the death squads that Palin promised would haul away our grandparents. I'm not saying that it's a sterling and 100% perfect piece of legislation. But the way things were (in healthcare) was TRAGICALLY WRONG.

Big Insurance. Big Pharma. Big Medicine. All dwarfed the average person who was nothing more than a number.


The only difference now is that the government says you MUST give your money to Big Insurance, Big Pharma, Big Medicine. Before, I wouldn't have to deal with them at all, and could actually look after my health instead of giving them money for nothing. Correction. I can STILL do as I have always done, but will be in violation of the law. That's exactly how I intend to handle it. "Nullification" on the individual level. Not legal, not found in any of the flowery words here, but it amounts to the same thing. I will continue to do so until the gov't gives me a bad enough case of lead poisoning that I need not worry about it.



To me, people upset about the new healthcare are probably already amongst the ranks of the "haves." Because, healthcare benefits the have-nots. And this whole thing about states rights is just a necessary step to take for people influenced by lies (Palin's death squads, et al), big corporations (campaign contributions) and special interest lobbies (wealthy corps and individuals) to set forth an opposition to a law that tries to level the healthcare playing field, among other issues.


I'm certainly not vacationing on the Riviera or anything. I have to hitch a ride or walk just to get across the county line. Not your typical rich guy. I care nary a whit about "death squads" (been there, done that, and checked THEM off), big corporations (not gonna give them my money for nothing, in SPITE of what the government thinks they can squeeze out of me), or any of the rest. What I care DEEPLY about is the government suddenly thinking they have the right to force my decisions, and actually make them FOR me, regarding the care and feeding of my own body, and forcing me to buy a non-product from some silly insurance ponzi scheme.. Not gonna happen, and neither am I going to pay any penalty tax for it. That's pretty simple and straightforward, and it will no doubt be the end of me, but so be it. I'd rather they end me than to comply with what I know to be wrong.

Big Government telling folks what to do with their own bodies. Imagine that. Where are the abortion activists now? I thought it was one of their mantras that no one else has the right to tell you what to do with your body. WHERE ARE THEY NOW?



No one has come to ask about and/or take any firearms that might be in my possession.


I take it you don't live in New Orleans, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, or Illinois, then. A couple of weeks ago, the state of North Carolina didn't take it's citizens guns away, it tried to nullify them by making it a crime to leave the front door of your house with one. Just in time for hunting season, it ticked off a lot of hunters, and gun owners in general. 120 days in the slammer for a violation. I don't know if they've rescinded that yet or not, and don't care. I generally ignore illegal "laws", as I will do with the "Health Care" law, which violates my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.



All of this "states rights" is going to descend us into Civil War if people keep ranting and provoking and calling for action.


Probably, with any luck. It looks like that's what it's going to take to get their attention, and convince them that folks are serious. Pity they can't just listen to their constituency. That would be a LOT simpler and less painful.



And then, once divided, someone will step into our mess and conquer.


Meh. Just trading one slave master for another. No difference.



And, to add, I am also a stubborn Virginian and love the Old Dominion. I also happen to realize that it is a *part* of a larger whole, too.


Me too, from the Southwestern part of the state. Seems to be some agitated folks there. Went on a trip up into Northern Virginia, through the Shenandoah Valley, into MD and PA, and back down through the piedmont area, and along the Blue Ridge back to Lynchburg before leaving the state last week. Signs of unrest up there, too, all the way to DC. By signs, I mean SIGNS. Big ones. Billboards, even painted on the sides of semi-trailers parked beside the highway, right down to small, hand-painted signs in folks yards. If they're any indication, incumbents are going to have a rough time of it come November 2.

Funny, most didn't endorse any party or candidate. One, in bold white letters on an ominous black background, simply said "NOVEMBER IS COMING". The semi-trailers said "US Congress, you have betrayed the American people. VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS".

Yup, looks like some of the natives are mighty restless, and incumbents are gonna have a hard road ahead.

I hope so. Good riddance. Don't let the doors to the halls of congress bump your asses on the way out.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
I will say though that it seems the majority of the people whom want a different system than currently exists in the US want a radically different one.


Is re-affirming the 10th amendment really that radical?

It's simple. Any federal law that isn't a Constitutional amendment, is at the states' individual discretion to enforce.

Unless I'm in the minority here and most people are saying something completely different.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
I will say though that it seems the majority of the people whom want a different system than currently exists in the US want a radically different one.


Is re-affirming the 10th amendment really that radical?

It's simple. Any federal law that isn't a Constitutional amendment, is at the states' individual discretion to enforce.

Unless I'm in the minority here and most people are saying something completely different.


I am not saying radical in the sense of extremist per-say, but instead in the sense of very different. I'm not making a judgment call on that right off the bat. I'll have to do a bit more looking into the 10th Amendment directly and how it is interpreted first.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   
A lot of valid points were raised in response to my original reply. There are valid points on both sides of the argument.

The issue is really, further complicated because I believe that many of us are making arguments for/against the "wrong" government. Here's how I see it.

1. There exists our Constitutional Republic, right? This is the government created and founded upon principles of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. This is the gov we were taught about in schools. This is the gov where the Federal Government trumps *most* state's laws/desires/etc. Yes, sometimes states "get away with" a few things. But, in essence, this is our federal government, a well-meaning entity that protects us from all sorts of harm. "Yes, you too Jimmy, can grow up to become the President!" "Golly, really?!" "Yes."

2. There exists a government whose roots lay at the end of WWII. This was, as far as we know, not formed in a formal manner. This gov probably began with *Patriots* doing things, dark things perhaps, in order to protect the average citizen, so us people wouldn't have dark things, dangerous things on our minds. These things were kept extremely secret. After a while, these *heavily funded* secrets spread out and became their own entities, independent of each other. This is the gov that trumps *almost everything* about the Federal Government because, for one, most people don't know about this, and two, there is little to no accountability over the BLACK OPS BUDGET. These folks *transcend administrations,* and they can possibly remain in power for their entire lifetime(s), like some judges. Imagine having that kind of power. In this dark SHADOW government, the lines between government and invisible dictators and global elite blur into the next category...

3. There exist "entities" --we shouldn't call this a "government" per say, because the entities are wealthy individuals and their corporations and organizations that exist outside of pubic view. This level of "government" is where the real power is, where the resources, motives, decisions and whims of the global elite influence day-to-day life for billions of people occurs. Everything up to this point has been a tool, --the visible Federal Government, and the Invisible Shadow Government. Also, at this level, national, political, religious and ethnic concerns evaporate, as this is a global level of view. This is the Global Elite level of "government."

My previous posts really concerned just the first layer of government, the visible, accountable Federal Government. Much of the work of the second level of government, the Shadow Government, has been attributed to the Federal Government --wrongly.

The problem is, how does one handle the Shadow and Global Elite? The Federal Government is really just there for show, anyhow. A facade intended to manage the country, protect us. I think a lot of the angst that has been attributed to the Fed Gov has not taken into consideration that they are merely an "arm" of the true Powers That Be. Just like in "The Usual Suspects," a great quote is...

THE BEST TRICK THE DEVIL EVER DID WAS TO CONVINCE THE WORLD HE DIDN'T EXIST."



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by nenothtu
 




So, if I withhold consent by not voting, am I off the hook, are am I still among the governed, but non consensually?


If you don't care enough about this country to vote, then what right do you claim to complain about the way it's run?


You probably didn't notice that little word "if" there. Might want to read more slowly so parts don't get skipped. I didn't say I didn't vote, I said "IF I don't vote...". Now that you mention it, though, I don't see WHY I bother voting. Not voting would BE a vote - no confidence, "none of the above", something along those lines. I can't see where any of my votes have kept the patients from taking over the asylum, and I don't think any of my future votes will cure them, or make them any more sane. Haven't seen it making much difference so far...

Now, for the complaint part, I've not given up my right to complain, with or without a vote. Nor have I delegated to anyone else, yourself included, the right to prevent me from complaining. Rights are a funny things - they aren't dependent on what others may think or want. That's why they're RIGHTS, rather than privileges.

I've already "paid" for my rights, as if I had to, even if I never ever voted again.



Make's no sense to me those who abstain from voting having the audacity to complain how the country is run. If you are so apathetic about your right to vote, obviously you are equally apathetic about how this country is governed and in that way you do give your consent to be governed by anyone who comes along.


Don't mistake putting an X, or not, on a piece of paper as equating to "consent". Folks can get disabused of that notion pretty quickly, simply by assuming the consent of another where none was given. Often turns out badly, but it's ALWAYS exciting, and has entertainment value.



So instead of your analogy of being a rape victim, it's more like you are the party slut who doesn't care who gives it to her.


See above, regarding "consent". Calling a passed out drunk chick at a party a "slut" still doesn't show "consent". If you think it does, you should try that defense in court some time. Lemme know if that ever happens to you. I'll be there, with popcorn.

Consent must be expressed, not assumed, and I haven't expressed mine.

Drunk or not.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy

Does anyone who wants a nullification or revolution or secession scenario believe in taxation?



I believe in taxation, but within limits. I believe it can be taken to extremes, by a government run amok, with the excuse given that it's to pay for things that the government has no business dabbling in to begin with.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 



You probably didn't notice that little word "if" there. Might want to read more slowly so parts don't get skipped.


Actually I did, that is why the first word in the first part of my reply to you was the word IF. Perhaps you need to take your own advice once and a while.


Now, for the complaint part, I've not given up my right to complain, with or without a vote. Nor have I delegated to anyone else, yourself included, the right to prevent me from complaining. Rights are a funny things - they aren't dependent on what others may think or want. That's why they're RIGHTS, rather than privileges.


You also have the right to vote. But if that is not a important right for you obviously none of your other rights are either.

Actually you are right, you do have the right to complain. However if you don't vote, than your complaint means exactly nothing.


Don't mistake putting an X, or not, on a piece of paper as equating to "consent". Folks can get disabused of that notion pretty quickly, simply by assuming the consent of another where none was given. Often turns out badly, but it's ALWAYS exciting, and has entertainment value.


Actually putting your mark on a contract does give consent.


See above, regarding "consent". Calling a passed out drunk chick at a party a "slut" still doesn't show "consent". If you think it does, you should try that defense in court some time. Lemme know if that ever happens to you. I'll be there, with popcorn.


And now you are twisting my words. What I said was...



So instead of your analogy of being a rape victim, it's more like you are the party slut who doesn't care who gives it to her.


I didn't say passed out drunk chick at a party. I said party slut. The difference is, the passed out drunk chick at a party cannot give consent, while the party slut can and does give consent to everyone in the place freely of her own will. Do you see the difference?

But nice fail at trying to twist my words around to mean something they didn't Thanks for playing.


Consent must be expressed, not assumed, and I haven't expressed mine.


If you vote, you give your consent to be governed by the elected official. If your guy does not win the election, then it gives you the right to say how terrible the winner is doing at every opportunity. In fact, if you vote, your dissent for the elected person that you did not vote for holds more weight because you weren't apathetic, and did go and vote.

While the lazy apathetic sob who did not vote, well, he can complain, but no one cares. After all, it's like listening to a wino in an alley bitch about the pidgins. Yea, you hear him, but no one gives a damn.


edit on 9/14/2010 by whatukno because: fix bbcode



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 




You say the law shall set us free -- but the law is not here to set anyone free. The law is here to condemn!


You may be assuming I mean legislation instead of LAW.

I like to call it the Golden Rule that brings about the Golden Path ( I know, a rip off of the God Emporer of DUNE), but it is a good analogy.

Ignorance of the LAW is no excuse. This cannot be applied to the "supposed" legislation or statutes we have now. Even the Supreme Court could not write down all the statutes if given 100 years to. But they could understand this-

You have the RIGHT to Life, Liberty and Property, the only crime is to harm someone else or infringe on their RIGHT to Life, Liberty and Property.

Pretty simple to understand, hell even a 5th grader could understand. Your recitation on Natural Law IS what I am talking about. Pollution as an example, if I knowingly poison the air, land or water, I know I am harming others or infringing on their rights. That is quite obvious is it not? Common law courts is the way to go to solve the out of control problems, not regulations and statutes that actually PROTECT this kind of infringement on our rights. Those usually protect the infringers by LIMITING their liability, do they not? Think about the Gulf Oil spill and you will get what I am saying here.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
 


The first thing we have to do is inform. The groundwork is already laid.

We just have to use it.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



The one thing I think most people miss is they govern by the consent of majority. The point behind our Congress was a compromise when it was created. The House, with representatives sent by the people to mind the peoples business, and the Senate, sent by the people to represent their States intrest. The setup we have pretty much ensures that the minority opinion is heard (sometimes hard to do I know).


No, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO!

The MAJORITY does not have a thing to do with it! The Constitution lays out the RESTRICTIONS on the government. We have a representative Constitutional Republic, not any damn Democracy. Democracy is the problem, not the SOLUTION. If legislation violates the Constitutional GUARANTEED rights of a SINGLE human being, it is unConstitutional! Period.

The government is allowed to pass legislation that remains WITHIN the confines of the Constitution, otherwise it is not LAW, it is "color of law", only the appearance of law.



Once the law has been passed The Supreme Court can, if they want, do Judicial review to ensure its constitutionality. They reserve this ability, and if anyone actually checks this setup was never put in place by our Constitution. The early Supreme Court gave themselves this ability, which I guess looking back its kind of funny since we all complain about Government over stepping their bounds


Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

The SCOTUS has no legal authority to question any legislation. Only can a individual or legal "person" that has filed a suit, can bring legislation to be heard on it's Constitutional merit. Legal standing, ever hear of THAT abuse of power of the courts?

If you could show me one instance of the SC deciding against legislation, before it is FIRST brought to trial by an individual, I would accept this, but you will not find one.

Also, ANY jury has the RIGHT to decide on the Constitutionality of ANY legislation. They can lawfully decide that the legislation is NOT law, just by finding not guilty or NO MERIT to the legislation. Look up jury nullification. Presidents and Supreme Court decisions have stated that this is the RIGHT of the JURY to decide also!



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 12:30 AM
link   
dup post, removed by staff



edit on Tue Sep 14 2010 by DontTreadOnMe because: member can no longer edit his posts



new topics

top topics



 
70
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join